Taste is a personal matter. Problems begin to crop up when taste becomes a public affair. In a recent edition of The Recorder, a student-run newspaper for Central Connecticut State University, a comic strip was published that has prompted powerful reactions from the public. The comic strip was created in poor taste and was published irresponsibly.
The first and foremost purpose of a newspaper is to inform its audience. When an editor, or an entire newspaper, begins to forget who constitutes the audience of the newspaper, the quality of the paper will inevitably begin to decline. Making light of serious situations that have nothing funny about them is not reporting the news or informing an audience, but merely perpetuating poor reporting and tasteless public relations.
The Recorder has had brushes with tasteless information before. In 2006, the newspaper published a commentary within its Op/Ed section entitled “Rape only hurts if you fight it.” The piece was published as a satire, taking the opposite side of an argument and making light of the argument. Rape only has one side-a bad side. There is no humor to be found in rape. Period.
That any editor of a newspaper-student or professional-would find it acceptable to publish a commentary piece that claims rape could be a “magical experience” for what the author considered “ugly women” is socially, morally and ethically reprehensible-not to mention emotionally cruel to any rape victims, and excessively shocking to the average reader.
In today’s American “shock and awe” society, it seems as though we as a people crave the over-sensationalized in deference to mundane reality. But isn’t reality shocking enough for us? We demand from our news sources the same sensationalism that we demand from our blockbuster movies and our over-the-top rock stars.
To make light of serious issues is to demean any person who has been affected by a serious issue such as rape. To debate serious issues is to help an audience come to conclusions about a certain topic. Debating serious issues is not intentionally hurtful to those taking part in the debate, but writing a commentary about an issue that is not debatable is writing specifically to hurt. When a paper begins publishing commentaries of that nature, that paper has clearly lost sight of its true objective: to inform.
One can only hope that writers who find writing about senseless acts of violence-essentially siding with those committing the acts-to be humorous will one day see the err orof their ways. Writing about the good aspects of rape is a contradiction. There is nothing good in rape. There is nothing funny in making racist comments in a cartoon strip.
It is time that media begin to realize that the world has enough sensational news as it is, and there is no need to try to shock the public. Our need to constantly be shocked and amazed by what we see has led writers to a point where they will write about topics that are simply too shocking and seem to defy any moral code ever conceived for decency.
Having overseen the publishing of two demeaning, tasteless and hurtful items during his tenure, it is time for the editor-in-chief of The Recorder realize the error of his ways and step down from a position intended for a respectful professional.
